Scarabs of the type known for
mid-Dynasty 13 kings with filiation (in general Martin back-type 6) attest to
a wide variety of names and titles, and in several instances the same name and
title recurs on several scarabs (here denoted 'scarab series').

The most substantial early
series is that of Senebsumai, recorded by Martin
1971 as with back-types 6 predominantly but also 3 (1), 4 (1, from Lisht
tomb 405), 5 (1), 7 (1), and 10 (2).

Scarabs of the type known for
Hyksos and non-Egyptian names (in general Martin back-type 10) attest to a far
lesser number of names and titles, and belong mainly to scarab series for men
titled treasurer or king's son.

These peak in the treasurer
Har series, recorded by Martin 1971
as with back-types 5 and 10 predominantly but also 4 (x2), 6 (1), 7 (1), 8 (1).

Earlier
series

UC 11463 commander of the ruler's
crew Sobekhotep son of commander of the ruler's crew Mentuhotep (identified
by Ryholt as the future Sekhemrasewadjtawy
Sobekhotep (III) son of Mentuhotep)

UC 11472 treasurer Nebresehwy

UC 11485 treasurer Senebsumai

Later
series

UC 11591 eldest king's son Nehesy,
back-type 10

UC 11597 eldest king's son Nehesy,
back-type 10

UC 11600 eldest king's son Qupepen,
back-type 5

UC 11601 king's son Seket (?) back-type
10

The
Har series and possible by-products

Scarabs of Har

UC 11486 back-type 10

UC 11488 back-type 5

UC 11489 back-type 10

UC 11490 back-type 10

UC 11491 back-type 10

UC 11492 back-type 10 - note determinative
disappearing into border

Note
too the example with r omitted, Martin 1971, pl.11.8

Scarabs with treasurer titles
only - might these be by-products from the Har scarab series production?

Scarabs with poorly attested
treasurers - might these also derive from the Har scarab series production?

UC 11479 'Rediha' back-type 10

UC 11507 'Rediha' back-type 10

There
is also the scarab read 'Sadi' by Kim Ryholt, Martin 1971, no.1672, pl.30.6
(Cairo, from Fuad I collection)

A problematic example

UC 11514 clear writing of title
of treasurer followed by inverted shen-loop, m, unclear central group - is this
an otherwise unattested treasurer (Martin, Ryholt), or a random assemblage of
signs? Where should the attestation be situated on the spectrum of meaningfulness,
given parallels available in the surviving record?